Superb speech by Leveson. Clear, logical, assertive etc. but they are still only recommendations, We'll find out what the politicians will do at about 3 pm. Across the spectrum, I don't think people will settle for "no action"

Superb speech by Leveson. Clear, logical, assertive etc. but they are still only recommendations, We'll find out what the politicians will do at about 3 pm. Across the spectrum, I don't think people will settle for "no action"

Superb speech by Leveson. Clear, logical, assertive etc. but they are still only recommendations, We'll find out what the politicians will do at about 3 pm. Across the spectrum, I don't think people will settle for "no action"

I haven't had a chance to see Leveson's speech.

But Dan Hodges has, and I think his article sums up the issue quite nicely.

Superb speech by Leveson. Clear, logical, assertive etc. but they are still only recommendations, We'll find out what the politicians will do at about 3 pm. Across the spectrum, I don't think people will settle for "no action"

Basically, b*gger all as far as I can tell. If self-regulation continues, Levenson was just a massive waste of time and cash.

Cameron should grow a pair and go for a proper regulator, that can stand up for the little guy and punish the press when they go out of line, rather than let Dacre, Murdoch, Rubbisher etc have their way (i.e self regulation)

Just watched the highlight reel on the BBC website. Leveson's recommendations sound clear, well thought out (obviously) and most importantly puts in place legal measures to protect the freedom of the press. The Lib Dems and Labour agree with them and surprise surprise the Tories do not.

It is poor, and I suspect that the author wrote almost all of the article before Leveson announced his conclusions. This isn't a victory for the politicians but an attempt to improve behaviour and standards in what has become a very sleazy industry.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Leveson has recommended an independent regulatory body, not political interference. The statutory part, let's not forget, is to ensure that the independent body is and remains independent (and robustly independent, hopefully), and not to put into law what the press should and should not do. I trust that Cameron realises this, and that his opposition is just a knee-jerk response based upon his instinctive dislike of regulation backed by law.

And when you consider that Dan Hodges' main attack is the style in which Leveson presented his findings, I think he is just playing to his audience.

These are worthwhile proposals and should initially be considered on a non-partisan basis, with a view to eventual implementation.

Just watched the highlight reel on the BBC website. Leveson's recommendations sound clear, well thought out (obviously) and most importantly puts in place legal measures to protect the freedom of the press. The Lib Dems and Labour agree with them and surprise surprise the Tories do not.

I think Cameron has a point. Once you start legislating the press (any further than they are subject to all the relevant laws of the land already in place obviously) then there is the threat of creep. Is it worth risking creep because of one scandal (ie phone hacking)?

The important thing to keep in mind is that Leveson has recommended an independent regulatory body, not political interference. The statutory part, let's not forget, is to ensure that the independent body is and remains independent (and robustly independent, hopefully), and not to put into law what the press should and should not do. I trust that Cameron realises this, and that his opposition is just a knee-jerk response based upon his instinctive dislike of regulation backed by law.

What Cameron is saying, though, is that it is ok for us to have an independent regulatory body now but what about in 20 years time? Will it still be independent then? Once the law has changed to curb press behaviour, any further changes by any future Parliaments is much easier. Before we know it we could find ourselves with a press that is actually firmly under the thumb of the politicians.

Far from having a knee-jerk reaction I think Cameron's is the most considered response. The other two parties are reflecting the knee-jerk reaction (albeit highly understandable) of many in the population who have been scandalised by the families who have suffered trauma and then had their phones hacked as well. But the people who sanctioned this are being brought to justice. We already have the laws to deal with bad behaviour, and now the laws have been rigorously applied, the press will already be on notice.

I think Cameron has a point. Once you start legislating the press (any further than they are subject to all the relevant laws of the land already in place obviously) then there is the threat of creep. Is it worth risking creep because of one scandal (ie phone hacking)?

Leveson doesn't suggest "legislating the press". He proposes legislation to ensure that the independent regulatory body is independent and remains so.

Leveson doesn't suggest "legislating the press". He proposes legislation to ensure that the independent regulatory body is independent and remains so.

Yes, I know. But so many things begin with good intentions.

Take another current topic: adoption. What began as a good intention to try and create stable, integrated adoption (and also fostering) placements by taking into consideration the ethnic and cultural needs of the child has become a millstone around everyone's necks who attempts to adopt or foster a child (or place the child). So the law is being changed to release the whole system from the stranglehold of cultural/ethnic consideration and bring the focus back on to the more important needs of the child (love, care, stability, safety, etc).

Leveson can have all the good intentions in the world but that does not mean to say that 20, 30 years down the line the government of the day will share those good intentions, especially if there is a scandal or two along the way. Once the path has been set to regulate the press by statute, it will be that much easier for that same statute to be tweaked either by Parliament or the courts or by precedent over time. It is looking into the future and where this could end up that is the wisdom here.

What Cameron is saying, though, is that it is ok for us to have an independent regulatory body now but what about in 20 years time? Will it still be independent then? Once the law has changed to curb press behaviour, any further changes by any future Parliaments is much easier. Before we know it we could find ourselves with a press that is actually firmly under the thumb of the politicians.

Far from having a knee-jerk reaction I think Cameron's is the most considered response. The other two parties are reflecting the knee-jerk reaction (albeit highly understandable) of many in the population who have been scandalised by the families who have suffered trauma and then had their phones hacked as well. But the people who sanctioned this are being brought to justice. We already have the laws to deal with bad behaviour, and now the laws have been rigorously applied, the press will already be on notice.

That would be a completely different and distinct step. One does not lead to the other; a definite decision has to be made and it is up to the democratic and accountable parliament to ensure that political regulation of the press does not happen.

Far from Cameron giving the most considered response (I think Leveson himself deserves that acclaim) I think he could be accused of muddled thinking; either that or he is using the statutory link as a bogeyman. Either way, I don't think he is reacting out of any high-minded principle.

Leveson can have all the good intentions in the world but that does not mean to say that 20, 30 years down the line the government of the day will share those good intentions, especially if there is a scandal or two along the way. Once the path has been set to regulate the press by statute, it will be that much easier for that same statute to be tweaked either by Parliament or the courts by precedent over time. It is looking into the future and where this could end up that is the wisdom here.

Yes, but implementation of his measured and limited proposals at this time would have no bearing on a government so minded in 20 or 30 years time. This is all scaremongering and it does Cameron no credit.